9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of which concealment is established and in respect of which penalty could be imposed is only Rs. 6.14 lakhs in the aggregate ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right and had valid materials to hold that the penalty that has to be levied for each year would be only Rs. 80,000 which was the minimum penalty imposable under law and not Rs. 1,25,000 in each year ? " The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, consisting of Sri V. L. Balakrishna Naidu, as the karta, his wife and his married daughter. There was a larger Hindu undivided family consisting of Sri V. L. Balakrishna Naidu and his two brothers, Sri V. L. Venkatachalapathy and Sri V. L. Varadarajan. It was carrying on the business of purchase of kappas and ginning the same and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax Act in respect of which reassessments were completed on October 30, 1982. The assessee had accepted the reassessments and no appeals were filed. Thereafter, the assessee filed a petition for waiver of the total penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rs. 1,25,000 for each assessment year) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for all the assessment years involved herein. This was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax by order dated October 17, 1980, on the ground that the disclosure made by the assessee was not full and true and that the assessments made on higher amounts were the result of quantification of the concealed income made by the authorities, after making necessary enquiries and investigation, and could not be ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was only Rs. 6.44 lakhs in the aggregate for all the assessment years and that the penalty that had to be imposed for each assessment year would be only Rs. 80,000 as against the penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 imposed by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee also contended that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied on March 30, 1985, on the defunct Hindu undivided family was not valid in law. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that the said section would apply to both levy and collection of penalty and that since the date of partition was December 31, 1974, the levy and collection of penalty up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1975-76 was legal and in order. The Tribunal also held that for each of the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not a case where there was no evidence to support the Tribunal's conclusion. Nor had the Tribunal acted on material which was irrelevant to the enquiry or considered material partly relevant and partly irrelevant or based its decision partly on conjecture, surmises or suspicion. In preferring one view to another view of factual appreciation, the High Court transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction on a reference in answering the question that it had reframed against the appellant." Thus, inasmuch as, in the present case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that only a sum of Rs. 80,000 alone is leviable as penalty in each of the assessment years under consideration on the basis of the facts arising in this case, we consider that no r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
